Henschel v. State Bar of
Filed 10/12/10
Henschel v. State Bar of California CA2/7
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND
APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION
SEVEN
BRADFORD HENSCHEL,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
B213595
(Los Angeles
County
Super. Ct.
No. BC379051)
APPEAL of
an order of the Superior Court
of Los Angeles
County. John P. Shook,
Judge. Affirmed.
Bradford E.
Henschel in pro. per.
Kerr &
Wagstaffe LLP and Michael von Loewenfeldt; Office of General Counsel, The State
Bar of California, Lawrence C. Yee and Tracey L. McCormick for Respondents.
______________________________
Bradford Henschel appeals from the
award of attorney's fees to the State Bar of California and the individual
defendants who obtained a dismissal of his claims against them. Although he asserts the trial court both erred as a matter of law
and abused its discretion in making the award, he has failed to show
either. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Henschel, a California lawyer whose license to
practice was suspended in 2003, became the subject of further disciplinary action by the State Bar of
California in 2007. He filed this
action, seeking declaratory relief, against the State Bar and individuals
involved in the disciplinary process on December 4,
2007. The defendants filed a special motion to
strike the complaint pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16[1],
which the court granted after hearing on January 17,
2008. Henschel timely appealed the order, but
failed to prosecute the appeal. This
court dismissed that appeal on May 15, 2008 (case No. B206984).
After remand to the trial court, the
defendants re-filed and calendared their motion for attorney's fees, which the
court heard, after several continuances, along with Henschel's motion to tax
costs, on November 18-19, 2008. The court ordered Henschel to pay costs and
attorney's fees in the sum of $7,751, and entered its order on December 9, 2008.
Henschel filed a notice of appeal on January 16, 2009, appealing the grant of the motion to strike as well
as the attorney's fees. His appeal was
timely as to the fee award, and we consider that portion of the appeal.[2]
With respect to the attorney's fees
issue, Henschel asserts four arguments on appeal: the hourly rate on which the fees were based
was falsely stated in that the attorney, an employee of the State Bar, is not
paid a salary equivalent to the rate used; any award of fees to the State Bar
is barred by section 425.16(c)(2); the State Bar, like a law firm, is not
entitled to recover fees expended on its own defense; and, finally, that the
form of the order was defective.[3] None of these arguments support reversal in
this case.
The Hourly Rates Used Were
Appropriate
We review an award of attorney's
fees with deference to the determinations made by the trial judge before whom
the case was litigated; â€
| Description | Bradford Henschel appeals from the award of attorney's fees to the State Bar of California and the individual defendants who obtained a dismissal of his claims against them. Although he asserts the trial court both erred as a matter of law and abused its discretion in making the award, he has failed to show either. Court affirm. |
| Rating |
